Nicene Trinitarianism and Islamic Apologetics

St. Athanasius – Defender Of The Incarnation

I’ve noticed a new trend in Islamic apologetics.  It’s clever, I’ll admit that.  I believe it started with Adnan Rashid in a debate that he had with James White a few years ago.  I could be wrong about that but regardless of the origins, it’s the argument that matters.  This is applied to both the Scripture and the Church fathers.  I want to deal with the Church fathers specifically.

If one goes back to the days when Sami Zaatari and Osama Abdullah were the leading Muslim debaters, debates about Jesus being God would be limited to Scripture.  Muslims would concede that the Church Fathers taught Trinitarian doctrine, even though they wouldn’t use that word before 200 AD.

Now the tactic has shifted.  The Church Fathers taught that Jesus was God but in a lesser way.  Muslim apologists now demand statements from the Fathers where Christ is equal with the Father.  Of course, that is ridiculous because the fourth century creeds don’t use that wording either, though they contain that message.

Mohammed Hijab recently tried to say that fourth century Church fathers like Athanasius, Hilary, and the Cappadocians developed the doctrine of the Trinity which was produced in the Creeds.  If the pre-Nicene fathers and even Scripture indicates that Jesus Christ is divine though not equal to the Father, then they would have been considered heretics.

In a way, they’re just moving the goalposts.  For example, they’ve moved beyond Scripture because if the earliest Church fathers believed that Jesus Christ is God in the traditional sense, then it would be a testament to what the Scripture teaches.  However, now the pre-Nicene fathers believe Jesus is God but in a lesser way according to Muslim apologists.

Now, where would the fourth century fathers get their information on the divinity of Jesus Christ?  Obviously from the Scriptures and the pre-Nicene Church fathers.  They had nothing else to go by.  What they would have hammered out would not contradict previous sources.

Mohammed Hijab talked about how the Roman Empire enforced “Nicene Trinitarianism” on the Roman population.  Now Trinitarianism has to be Nicene which means co-equal and co-eternal.  The fourth century creeds don’t even use those words, though they certainly convey the message.  Hijab and other apologists need to be called out on this.

Recently Rabbi Tovia Singer said something similar to this as well.  He said that the NT portrays Jesus as God to a lesser extent than the Father.  It’s the same argument that Hijab and Rashid bring though it’s with the NT as opposed to the fathers.

In a way I’m happy about this.  Without realizing it they’ve admitted that the belief that Jesus was God goes back to the beginning.  All they’re trying to do is do a bait and switch.  More or less they’re saying: “Sure, it says that Jesus Christ is God but it’s not in the same way you believe today.”

This is exactly what people like James White do with the Church fathers against Catholicism.  The early Church believed in a “real presence” but not in the same real presence that “modern Rome” believes in.  Yes, the early Church talks about the Catholic Church but not in the same way the “modern Roman Catholic Church” believes in.  This is reading modern Romanism back into the text!!!

I’m really not impressed with this new Muslim line of argumentation.  If a Muslim demands these standards of evidence just inform them that they’ve conceded and are moving the goalposts back.  In a way I think Islamic apologetics is more advanced than it was ten years ago in the Sami Zaatari days.  It’s improved but not in terms of arguments.  It has only improved on getting around clear evidence that is staring them right in the face.